If Feds peak years coincided with these next gen losers

robthai

Hall of Fame
If Fed faced peak Nadal and Djokovic during his peak years, but then as he declines and has to deal with these next gen losers the same way Nadal and Djokovic have once they got olded. What would be his slam count? Would it be less or more than 20?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Probably less, Nadal and Djokovic would have stopped him more.

Anyhow, this is a discussion based on unstestable speculation. We cannot create a time machine to put young Federer to play against same aged Nadal and Djokovic, as well as Zverev, Thiem, Kyrgios and the likes.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
we
Probably less, Nadal and Djokovic would have stopped him more.

Anyhow, this is a discussion based on unstestable speculation. We cannot create a time machine to put young Federer to play against same aged Nadal and Djokovic, as well as Zverev, Thiem, Kyrgios and the likes.
well he did pretty well as a geriatric veteran in his 30s against these guys. You dont think he would at least do as well if he were in his peak years? What nonsense.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
No way to know yet. Because we have no idea what the field 5 years from now will play like.

We're assuming Fed faced the Big 4 instead of the Roddicks & Hewitts of his actual peak (2000s).

So then he'd be facing the current field during the time he wasn't winning majors (early 2010s).

What players would he be facing during his mid/late 30s? We don't know what a prime Sascha, Denis, etc will be like. Fed went from 17 to 20 in his mid-30s against the current field. Maybe the gen after this would be strong enough to prevent that.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
The same I'd reckon? But damn it'd be a bloodbath if they all were the same age in their 20's
 

roleaux987

New User
Probably less, Nadal and Djokovic would have stopped him more.
Nope, Fed claim to fame is 2004-2007. Everything else is a bonus. Novak only did 2011 (not even the full year), 2015, 2016 (not even full year) and Nadal has never really had a full good year but it would be 2010 and 2013 and 2017 which were no coincidence some of the weakest era years ever.

Fed well after his peak won a boatload vs aboslute peak nadal and peak djokovic.

If anything the fact that these guys cant even put away fed when they are supposedly high ATG's works against their legacies big time.

So no, if fed past his peak is winning vs peak nadal and djokovic then of course peak for peak he beats them even more
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
I love Murray but he was just a minor nuisance to the big 3, to NextGen players he would be a dominant force that makes them quiver in fear.
I actually think Andy would still struggle on clay against players like Kei or even Chung (assuming Chung improves his serve). His grinding style still would take a lot out of him prior to major finals. Fed usually just breezes through early rounds of slams and generally has something left in the tank when the final is played.

As for Fed, if his only competition were players like Zverev, Dimi, Raonic or Thiem, he would be sitting on 33 majors, probably more. No question! Without Nadal, he would have easily won 5 more FO's right there.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Calling someone a "loser" when he is an extremely succesfull athlete + all the benefits coming with it ....
Just so you know, inteligent people would brand you as an " idiot "
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I thought the generally accepted theory here for some is Fed’s peak coincided with losers

Does it matter whether it is NextGen loser or previous gen loser ?
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Calling someone a "loser" when he is an extremely succesfull athlete + all the benefits coming with it ....
Just so you know, inteligent people would brand you as an " idiot "
As a tennis player your job is to win as many matches and tournaments as you can. This generation has won nothing significant at all. Hence the term "losers", because they dont win tournaments. So what do you want me to call them when they consistently lose? Are they winners in your eyes when they cant compete for majors?
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
As a tennis player your job is to win as many matches and tournaments as you can. This generation has won nothing significant at all. Hence the term "losers", because they dont win tournaments. So what do you want me to call them when they consistently lose? Are they winners in your eyes when they cant compete for majors?
If this true than everyones job aim should be to become a CEO .. if they dont, than they are loosers .., No?
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
If this true than everyones job aim should be to become a CEO .. if they dont, than they are loosers .., No?
when you've been touted and heavily promoted as the best of your generation then you are supposed to win the big trophies. What you are implying is like calling a player like Berdych a loser for not winning slams. Well hes not the best of his generation so you cant fault him for that. On the other hand you have these young guys who are the best of their generation and they cant even compete. Pathetic if you ask me, that an entire generation can go slamless.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
This is the real weak era. Djokodal have benefited the most. There has never been a younger player to expose their decline.

truth.


2014 to current is the weakest I've ever seen the ATP.. Lost Gen is a fail and next gen is on the clock.

There is not one player born in the 90s that has won a slam or been world number one.


at least the WTA has produced that!


the fact that old Nadal and ancient Fed are still atop the world rankings and still viable at slams telle you every thing you need to know


I actually feel kind of bad for players like Tsonga, Berdych, Monfils etc. the last two years would have been a great time for them to vulture a slam or two, but then Fedal arose from the dead like Lazarus.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Pathetic if you ask me, that an entire generation can go slamless.
On what ground is that pathetic? Players dont promote themselfs, they are promoted by other people and when those other people realise that they are somehow "wrong", they get hurt and start throwing insults ... just like you.
Tennis is not played in order for someone to win a title just like music is not created by its author in order for him to win prizes. Tennis is played on the basis that it should entertain people and make them happy. Sadly modern day society has a different narative and people instead start focusing just on the end result not the journey.

Tennis example - what made Federers AO 17 title so great. Its not that he lifted a trophy, is not that he won 2000 points or 2 mln dollars. Its the 5 year struggle to overcome age, pears, himself, injuries and his extremely difficult title road, filled with close matches. Thats why that trophy would be regarded much,much higher than his Wimbledon 17 and probably every other one.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
where's @Meles ?... :oops:

The thread should be Lost Gen. Thiem and backwards are just starting. It wouldn't have been pretty for Fraud I suspect as we already found out in his recent Kokkinakis match. Zverev at age 20 would have destroyed Fed at the same age.:rolleyes: I see with the OP Mensa let one of its members loose on TTW.:eek:
 
Top